My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SM 08-08-80
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
SM 08-08-80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 4:09:14 PM
Creation date
9/25/2012 2:41:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend development Conmission <br />Special Mee ing - August 8, 1980 <br />6. NEW <br />d. continued... <br />Ms. Auburn: It was interesting °on my <br />trw7els on my vacation as I went west- <br />wani read the newspapers going across <br />the country, that the discussion on <br />et of plants is going on in almost <br />every state that has a substantial farm- <br />ing con unity. There are plants being <br />pr sed and developed in Nebraska; <br />Kansas, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, <br />South Dakota, and Minnesota. I think <br />tha this is an important development, <br />not only for South Bend, but for the <br />State of Indiana to get into that kind <br />Of T larket. <br />Mr. INimtz: Thank you Ms. Auburn. <br />e. Tax I Abatement request from the Hablin <br />Mr. Ellison: I don't see Mr. Harold <br />B seke present, who is the attorney <br />for the petitioner. In his absence <br />I 11 briefly describe the report <br />h <br />whi has been prepared by the staff <br />for the Commission which has been marked <br />as Item 6E in your packets. This abate - <br />men request is for the Century Mall <br />Place project which has been under <br />construction for some tine and as I <br />and stand it, is nearly completed. <br />The petition is a ticklish.one in <br />that the understanding of the Council's <br />intEnt previously has been that if a <br />construction permit were issued or con- <br />struction actually started, then it could <br />not be reasonably demonstrated that an <br />abatement was necessary to make that <br />pro ect happen: However, our investi- <br />gation reveals that the Hablin Company, <br />the petitioner, is in a rather awkward <br />situation in that Hablin in developing <br />the project and starting construction did <br />so at a time when there was no clear local <br />pro edure. They also started construction <br />at a time when Hablin presumed that the <br />fi year abatement statute would be <br />app icable and they would be able to receive <br />the five year abatement. <br />-15- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.